> classifiers, but reading this, it sounds like they might be properly called genders too?
No, not quite, classifiers do not introduce a notion of the noun class/gender, and the East/South East Asian languages that make an extensive use them (notably, Sino-Burmese and Tai-Kradai languages) remain being fully analytical languages.
A more apt comparison for classifiers would be collective nouns, of which English (and other Indo-European languages) has plenty, e.g.
– a pandemonium of enterprise architects;
– a tuxedo of Linux kernel developers;
– a dazzle of birds of paradise;
– a shiver of IT consultants;
– etc.
where the implicitly associated noun class/gender of the noun that is the focal point of the expression is «debased» into a collective one and can be applied across the noun class/gender boundaries. Pandemonium, dazzle, tuxedo and shiver are, effectively, classifiers.
No, not quite, classifiers do not introduce a notion of the noun class/gender, and the East/South East Asian languages that make an extensive use them (notably, Sino-Burmese and Tai-Kradai languages) remain being fully analytical languages.
A more apt comparison for classifiers would be collective nouns, of which English (and other Indo-European languages) has plenty, e.g.
– a pandemonium of enterprise architects;
– a tuxedo of Linux kernel developers;
– a dazzle of birds of paradise;
– a shiver of IT consultants;
– etc.
where the implicitly associated noun class/gender of the noun that is the focal point of the expression is «debased» into a collective one and can be applied across the noun class/gender boundaries. Pandemonium, dazzle, tuxedo and shiver are, effectively, classifiers.